Supreme Court Issues 'Sweeping And Definitive' Ruling Against Aereo In Huge Copyright Casehttp://www.businessinsider.com/aereo-supreme-court-ruling-2014-6/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:33:45 -0500Steve Kovach and Erin Fuchshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ac266decad040a6a2ad276JoyfulThu, 26 Jun 2014 09:55:57 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ac266decad040a6a2ad276
So when cable first started, first with one channel and then like 33, then never had commercials outside of the broadcast networks. Yes TV does have a cost. The unjust thing is when you are taking in money from your customers and then sell that customer product to advertiser which butt in and take away from what the customer wants to see.
Imagine a world were you buy and pay for your car but for 15mins every hour someone you did not approve is allowed to rent your car and does not require your consent.... that is cablehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab780f6bb3f7656e91ee2bDoug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 21:31:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab780f6bb3f7656e91ee2b
Clearly you can't follow logical arguments, so this is going to be a pretty lame discussion.
The question was whether it made a difference whether an outsourced service was doing something on your behalf that you could do yourself. I pointed out, correctly, that the courts have consistently held that that was not "personal use." My example was illustrating an easy to understand case, since the specifics of over-the-air broadcast storage hadn't been ruled on. Until now.
They're still not fair use.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab38096bb3f7a70a91ee31one last thingWed, 25 Jun 2014 16:58:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab38096bb3f7a70a91ee31
One last thing: "fair use" already has precedent.
In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. back in 1984 it was ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is considered fair use. The court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, cannot be liable for infringement.
Going back to Scalia's "copy machine" analogy, Aereo is renting the DVR and antenna for the consumers personal and "fair use" viewing of programs through "time shifting".
The SCOTUS has ignored court precedent to make this ruling, and that is a travesty. I see this being reversed in the future once certain justices retire and are replaced by more sensible judges.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab357a6bb3f7e50591ee32you are also an idiotWed, 25 Jun 2014 16:47:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab357a6bb3f7e50591ee32
Looking closer at Scalia's dissent, I see several contradictions.
You will note that he compared Aereo to a "copy shop", meaning that Aereo makes no "choice of content" and therefore is "not directly liable" for infringement.
Which leads back to my point: that Aereo merely provides the equipment and stores it onsite for its customers use - in this case an antenna and DVR - just as Scalia's "copy shop" example provided machines and a room for people to use to make copies. If the consumer used the copy machine for "fair use" (such as viewing free over the air network broadcasts), then there is no law being broken. So you see, while Scalia contradicts himself, his reasons for any agreement with the decision are unsound.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2f0fecad04f25522ef9bHero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 16:20:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2f0fecad04f25522ef9b
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm giving you the SCOTUS's opinion, not mine. (And true to form, the chowderheads in the BI comments section continue to downvote FACTS they don't agree with.)
But I don't understand your question. Nobody has claimed that either Aereo or any other cable company is a "broadcast service". Broadcast, by definition, means over the air.
Tell you what. Rather than having some schmuck on the internet (or TV or the radio) explain the SCOTUS's decision, why not do something totally bonkers and let the SCOTUS do it?
<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2c6fecad04824a22ef99nope!!Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:09:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2c6fecad04824a22ef99
Nope. The issues many have with these activist judges has nothing to do with "wanting free stuff". Sorry, but you are a loony
The reason so many have issues with Scalia, Thomas, Alito (and frequently Roberts) is that they have to contort and twist their interpretations of the constitution in order to fit their political beliefs. Its not the law, much less the actual spirit of the law (far more important IMO since the constitution is over 200 years old and written at a time where so many things have changed) that this group is interested in, and so it has become legislating from the bench for them. Citizens United is a perfect example of how politics triumphed over the spirit of the law, and in fact how this group does not respect stare decisis (prior supreme court decisions that denied corporations the same rights as people, such as 1970's US vs Kordel and others). By not respecting precedent, these justices are simply making up their own rules and acting as judicial activists in order to satisfy a political agenda. Thats why we have issues with them, and not some nonsensical desire for free things.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab25356bb3f7964691ee2bactualy they doWed, 25 Jun 2014 15:38:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab25356bb3f7964691ee2b
Its not "the channel" you are watching, but the content. Its called "streaming" and it is accessed through the company's website or their app. For example, go to CBS' website or download their app for your tablet or smartphone and you can watch all the shows you want for free. You can do this on Hulu too.
Now, some cable channels such as ESPN 3, cartoon network, etc. require that you use an account login from your ISP to access content. This is the account you use to do online billing, get email, etc. I have used it to get online content with Verizon and Suddenlink no problem without subscribing to their video/ cable services or paying for any package other than data. I have no reason to suspect that this would be any different with comcast.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2471ecad045c3122ef9ab149Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:35:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab2471ecad045c3122ef9a
I already have an OTA antenna, receive 52 channels (most, but not all HD) and stream Netflix and Amazon Prime for $15 a month, so plenty to watch relatively cheap (internet $45 a month) It can be done. This case was about access to content, that's what you're paying for, entertainment. The copyright law was changed in 1976 so cable would have to pay fees for the broadcast channels, I knew they wouldn't touch the technology aspect, so to keep the status quo, they'll make Aereo pay the same fees they made the cable companies pay basically. Scalia even mentions in his dissent that "some" of the Aereo content is copyrighted, bu there's no way to realisitcally meter who is viewing what, so a flat fee is charged. I think the play will be for Netlfix to buy Aereo and roll it into their app, so then you'd get a great alternate to cable for about $20 a month.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab22f5ecad04fd2c22ef99Doug the retardWed, 25 Jun 2014 15:28:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab22f5ecad04fd2c22ef99
Whats the matter Dougie retard? You can dish it out but cant take it? How pathetic!
But since you arent bright enough to understand, I will explain it again so that even a retard like you can understand. Your comparison of consumers accessing free OTA signals from their own personal antenna to a business buying DVD's and broadcasting them is not valid or applicable in this situation. So, try again and if your reasoning is still weak then I shall insult you again. Retard.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab0bd46bb3f71d6891ee32Tchikaya BrooksWed, 25 Jun 2014 13:50:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab0bd46bb3f71d6891ee32
i wonder if it would make a difference if we (the consumers) actually bought the machines/antennas ourselves. we could then ship the machines/antennas to aero. all aero would be doing is storing the boxes and connecting them to the internet. from there, we (the consumers) would pay aero a fee for storage. since we own the machines and are controlling it ourselves, i don't think this would constitute redistribution. it is simply remote access to equipment that we already own.
is this a viable workaround?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab0acc6bb3f7a85f91ee3cSecurities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 13:45:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab0acc6bb3f7a85f91ee3c
The point is that most people evaluate Supreme Court decisions based on their own narrow self interest rather than a rational assessment of the merits of the legal claims at stake. That is, they don't support Scalia, Thomas and Alito because they believe a text-based approach to jurisprudence makes sense, but rather because they want free stuff.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab012569beddf279c768abdjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 13:04:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ab012569beddf279c768ab
Yes, but I can already get all these other services on-the-go. So my desire to use Pandora as proxy is diminished.
Instead, I'm interested in getting broadcast TV on-the-go. I can either stand up an antenna, DVR and cloud server in my home. Or I can outsource all that to another provider. The Supreme Court has just limited my options, so I can now only do this from my home. All the broadcasters have done is buy themselves time until everyone effectively has this solution in house.
Getting back to your Pandora analogy, the question is whether content I download from YouTube, bandcamp, etc falls under free-use. If so, I can record it and retransmit it to myself. If I can do that, then I can upload that content that to a cloud service. And probably I can have the cloud service do a "mix tape" - a private radio stream for me. Youtube, bandcamp, et. al. may have provisions to prevent that type of "fair use"; I don't know. But if they don't, then there's nothing to prevent me contracting with a proxy to do the work for me. If Youtube, bandcamp, et. al. don't like it, they need to change their terms of service.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaff96ecad04fc2a22ef95Teddy BoorsteinWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:57:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaff96ecad04fc2a22ef95
Who cares?
If you are not a blind follower, you base it upon their decisions. In this case they each made a good one. But most times, they make bad ones.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafe84eab8eacb49084289Teddy BoorsteinWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:53:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafe84eab8eacb49084289
Let me butt in here. I don't know which services you are talking about, but being a stand alone subscriber of comcast internet does not give you access to channels like ESPN.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafe34eab8eacd4d08427dDoug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:04 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafe34eab8eacd4d08427d
I didn't say they were, Mr. Rocket Scientist.
Have anything to offer besides insults?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafab26bb3f7ea2691ee2edjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:37:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafab26bb3f7ea2691ee2e
Explain to me how Aereo is a broadcast service, then I'll buy into them being like a cable company.
I think my explanation to you how I'm outsourcing my Antenna and DVR to Aereo will be less convoluted.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafa266bb3f7522791ee30Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:34:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aafa266bb3f7522791ee30
Damn hipster.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf89e69bedd565ec768adSAL-eWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:28:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf89e69bedd565ec768ad
Copyright is outdated concept. it conflicts with human progress. It was sold to the public as protection of the artist and etc. but In real world is used to stifle innovation and progress.
Based on rulings from the same supreme court: It is legal to watch over-the-air broad cast while I record the show on my VCR so that my wife can watch the same show later after she took care of our kids.
That was back in 1980's. Since 2000's it is possible to use my computer to record the show just like the VCR, but no tape needed. Still based on previous ruling ... LEGAL.
Today, it quite possible to move my computer somewhere in the 'cloud' and still do exactly the same thing. and .... thanks to contradictory decision it is ILLEGAL?!
The whole thing is so stupid it just doesn't make any sense. Areo will not exist if the "STUPID" TV Executives decide to catch on with progress and start offering the product over the Internet.
ps. I called TV Executives stupid, but they are not. They know exactly what they are doing and we are the stupid one for allowing them to do whatever they want.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf86769bedd405fc768abHero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:27:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf86769bedd405fc768ab
"Scalia's dissent shows that they knew the law wasnt being broken."
You didn't read Scalia's dissent, did you. Here's a direct quote, straight from pages 28-29:
"That conclusion does not necessarily mean that Aereo’s service complies with the Copyright Act. Quite the contrary. The Networks’ complaint alleges that Aereo is directly and secondarily liable for infringing their public- performance rights (§106(4)) and also their reproduction rights (§106(1)). Their request for a preliminary injunc- tion—the only issue before this Court—is based exclusively on the direct-liability portion of the public-performance claim (and further limited to Aereo’s “watch” function, as opposed to its “record” function). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a–61a. Affirming the judgment below would merely return this case to the lower courts for consideration of the Networks’ remaining claims."
And another from page 34:
"I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf823ecad04020922ef9adjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:26:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf823ecad04020922ef9a
They're not selling the content. Do you see them offering a tiered service based on some channels vs all channels?
They're selling the bag-as-a-service.
And I want my provide of a bag-as-a-service to go scoop up free goodies for me, for my exclusive use, as my proxy agent, then that's between me and them. No harm, ho foul to providers of free goodies.
If the providers of free goodies want more out the transaction with me, then they need to change their terms of doing business with me.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf77a69bedd7059c768a4Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:23:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf77a69bedd7059c768a4
This.
Using new technology to break a law is still breaking the law. Sincerely, The SCOTUShttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf72becad04cb0922ef99Doug the retardWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:22:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf72becad04cb0922ef99
DVD's arent broadcast over the air for free viewing like network TV is. Try again retard.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf68aecad04f30822ef97actually they doWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:19:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf68aecad04f30822ef97
I just told you how brain trust. I see you are not only clueless about what streaming services are available, but that your reading comprehension rivals that of a 6 year old.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf685ecad04fe0822ef95hammermanWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:19:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf685ecad04fe0822ef95
That's it though. It's not fair use when you are paying one company to rip content to a cloud subscription you pay for to access it anywhere at any time......whereas the TV antenna picks up the content to play at the time of broadcast where it does not get saved.
This would be like Pandora arguing that they don't have to pay royalties to musicians because their website picks up all the movie, music and any other content from youtube, soundcloud, and other free streaming sites. But Pandora will charge $8/month to the end user for this.
Aereo is trying to profit off content they did not create or pay a royalty for.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf6246bb3f7211591ee34Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:17:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf6246bb3f7211591ee34
The Copyright Act of 1976 **IS** the law, dude.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf5fc69bedd2950c768a6you are still an idiotWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:17:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf5fc69bedd2950c768a6
Seriously? So easily refuted...
1. The reason the ruling went the way it did is because the SCOTUS is a bunch of luddites who dont understand the technology. If you followed then trial at all the questions the attorneys were asked by the justices demonstrated that they didnt understand what Aereo was or what it actually did. Well, not all of them. Scalia's dissent shows that they knew the law wasnt being broken. And "contributing to the content producer's bottom line"? Is that a joke? Aereo wasnt blocking the commercials in any way! How exactly was this "free riding"? Also, you do realize that this only dealt with OTA signals that anyone can legally watch for free, dont you? From your response, it appears you do not.
2. Yeah...uhm, are you familiar with how cable companies and satellite companies determine what local channels you receive? Because your response again seems to imply that you do not. News flash: they use your street address and zip code....same as Aereo.
3. Well, we can certainly agree that you arent informed. Your posts scream that loud and clear for all to see. And again, the content producers arent losing anything that people couldnt get for free. The only difference here was that the antenna - an antenna that each Aereo customer personally owned - was located in Aereo's facility and the signal was streamed back to the customer instead of being physically attached to their TV. Thats it. There was no alteration or manipulation of the signal at all. The content was not changed, not "stolen", nothing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf5f26bb3f7351891ee33Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:16:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf5f26bb3f7351891ee33
Not exactly. The SCOTUS says that Aereo is running a cable company, regardless of the specific gizmos they're doing it with. And cable companies fall under the Copyright Act of 1976. Full stop.
All this crap about renting antennas has been held to be irrelevant. (And so, by proxy, is all the whining about it on the internet.)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf56e6bb3f7251191ee32hammermanWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:14:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf56e6bb3f7251191ee32
it doesn't matter if the drugs are free....They are created and owned by a company.
You cant sell a mini bag of goods that contains free perfume samples you got in the store for profit but say you are selling your own bag.
You cant sell other people's copyrighted content period.
It's like setting up a box that rips songs off YouTube, soundcloud, Pandora and videos off youtube, and vimeo, etc then you rent that box to people for $10/month.
You are becoming a service provider of content you did not contract or license with.
Pandora has to pay royalties, Aereo would have to pay royalties if they want to get into business.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51decad04407d22ef97Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:13:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51decad04407d22ef97
If you read the actual decision, you'll find that Scalia also thinks Aereo is in violation of copyright laws - and says so, twice. He disagrees only with the majority opinion in the single issue that was brought before the SCOTUS.
In other words, it's essentially a 9-0 decision. They're only disagreeing over technicalities.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51aecad046b7e22ef98Securities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:13:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51aecad046b7e22ef98
I wonder how many people railing upon the outcome of this case as a classic tale of crony capitalism have ever had anything nice to say about Scalia, Thomas and Alito--the three justices who dissented and would have held otherwise.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51569beddcc51c768a9the oppositeWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:13:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf51569beddcc51c768a9
This is what happens when people who don't understand the law make tech companies.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf497ecad043a7d22ef9aBad For You Tube TooWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:11:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf497ecad043a7d22ef9a
If you read the ruling, this is could be pretty ugly for YouTube too. Google could have some major liability here.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf4776bb3f7211191ee2ebad analogyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:10:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf4776bb3f7211191ee2e
So, because content is free over the air, stealing it and selling it is ok? That's what they're doing. It is irrelevant what the cost of the product is to them or anyone, it is relevant that they are selling something that is not their's to sell and they are pretending that they are doing something else. Essence of a sham transaction, period. Substance over form will always win out.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf43fecad040b7e22ef99Hero's DutyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:09:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf43fecad040b7e22ef99
Actually they can't. Contractual agreements with program producers, actors unions, etc. don't permit it. That's why radio station internet streams don't carry the same commercials.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf431ecad04397d22ef95Securities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:09:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf431ecad04397d22ef95
The key clause in your sentence being "to people who have cable subscriptions."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf3d969bedd9344c768a8Securities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:07:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf3d969bedd9344c768a8
I'm not clueless. I just like live sports. If you have a way to watch them without subscribing to cable or going to the corner tavern, enlighten us with your brilliance.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf38569bedde14cc768a4hammermanWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:06:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf38569bedde14cc768a4
"Aereo said that it was legal and did not need to pay broadcasters as cable companies do because it streams programs through individual antennas into people's homes and is therefore a "private performance."
Ufgh no you are ripping content and storing it in a cloud for a user to watch it on any device at any time and have a copy of the copyrighted content"
TV antennas play the show at the time it is broadcasted to the TV hooked up to. There is a huge difference.
I'm glad Aereo got struck down. You can sell other people's content, whether they charge or not for it. Pandora, Soundcloud, Spotify all pay license fees and royalties to do this with music. Why do you think TV shows are exempt?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf2e3eab8ea6320084280kellydorsey8Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:03:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf2e3eab8ea6320084280
The senile, battling to open that email box, uphold the status quo.
Lord knows how much of their overdue retirement is bundled in established communications and entertainment stocks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf2c76bb3f73b0891ee31change broadcaster license requirement is the solutionWed, 25 Jun 2014 12:03:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf2c76bb3f73b0891ee31
Exactly! Broadcasters can deliver the signal to viewers over the internet directly, the same way as with over the air.
Cable and satellite companies are redundant, they only serve to double-charge customers, for the benefit of the broadcaster and cable/satellite companies.
It is basically a collusion between broadcasters and cable/satellite industry to extract more money together from the customers and share the extra revenue via rights fees.
This could be fixed with a simple legislation: granting broadcaster license would require both over the air and internet streaming.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf12969beddb33dc768acdjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:56:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf12969beddb33dc768ac
But what if the DVDs were being freely transmitted over-the-air? And what if the users recorded the content on their own DVRs and pushed the content up to the cloud, so they could have access to the content on-the-go? That's all legal under "fair use". The only thing we're talking about is if the users got tired of hairpinning the traffic at their premise and wanted to hairpin the traffic in their cloud provider instead.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf05269beddd340c768a4rights feesWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:52:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaf05269beddd340c768a4
The rights fees should be covered by the subscription fees. Cable companies take that fee, plus advertising revenue.
The whole point of getting the free over the air content via cable is to get rid of the ads (which support the free broadcast).
Cable companies double-charge the customers by not delivering ad free broadcast - they should be in front of the supreme court.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef65eab8eaa31508427factually they doWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:48:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef65eab8eaa31508427f
Most ISP's also offer video services/ cable. Provided you are a data subscriber you also get access to their streaming services, such as ESPN 3 which you are clueless about. In fact, you can watch a bigger variety of programming and select what you actually want to watch (unlike with ESPN and ESPN 2) instead of being forced to watch what is on their standard broadcasts. I use it often to watch certain college football games because I dont have cable.
And golf channel? People actually watch that crap?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef4d69bedd753cc768a4depressionWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:48:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef4d69bedd753cc768a4
1. If this was a net positive for the networks we wouldn't have had a supreme court ruling. .. (so I'm thinking free rider here that doesn't contribute jack squat to the content producers bottom line )
2. You can't tell me in this day and age that there was no way to get around their region restrictions. ...What ,were they trigulating based off of people's IP address? I bet it was some silly question like "tell us what zip code you live in "
3. Your right , I'm not the most informed on this issue , but I'm going to back up the content producers because they need all the help they can get , people have been stealing from them like mad for the last decade ...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef08ecad04936822ef98Michael O'DonnellWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:47:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaef08ecad04936822ef98
OK, then let's start charging the television and radio stations for the use of the public's band width. We already do that for cell phones, so why should these folks get off scott free? Guess which group controls the airways (cable also)? What percentage of the Supreme Court justices?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee9e69bedde731c768adDoug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:45:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee9e69bedde731c768ad
That's not how the courts see it.
You can't e.g. set up a business where you buy DVDs and then charge others to watch them, without paying rights fees.
Much to Netflix' chagrin.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee74eab8ea8f0c084280Jason S MillerWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:44:52 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee74eab8ea8f0c084280
They are still showing broadcast, so users are still getting the commercials, folks just had the option to see what shows and channels they wanted - but who cares about the end users, it also about business staying with the business model they knowhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee5fecad043b6322ef9cJoeyHocWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:44:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaee5fecad043b6322ef9c
I'm sure the Supreme Court "justices" received zero compensation from this deal. They remind me of those troll oracle creatures from the movie 300, sell out to the highest bidder.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaede3eab8eaff0c08427dTHERESAWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:42:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaede3eab8eaff0c08427d
DOES THIS RULING STOP THE COMPANY AEREO FROM OFFERING THERE SERVICE FOR FREE? DOES THIS RULING STOP THE PUBLIC FROM RECEIVING THERE OWN SIGNAL IN THEIR OWN AIR SPACE? THE ANTENNA''S FOR SALE CAN BE A BIT PRICEY, BETTER OFF MAKING YOUR OWN,THAT WILL DE-SCRAMBLE ALL THE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES. THE TAX PAYERS ALSO PAY FOR THE SATELLITES.
.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaed20ecad04f05c22ef99Serious question here.Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:39:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaed20ecad04f05c22ef99
People watch network TV? My god..http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaed1fecad04df5b22ef9ddjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:39:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaed1fecad04df5b22ef9d
It's personal use if I'm not rebroadcasting it. If I'm paying Aereo to re-broadcast to others than that's different. But I'm not; I'm paying Aereo to mono-stream it to me - that's still personal use.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaecdbecad04426022ef96you are an idiotWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:38:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaecdbecad04426022ef96
"you think TV doesn't have costs and that it runs on magic jelly beans ?"
No, it runs on advertising you moron. It has for decades but you are too big of an idiot to know that.
Also, if you had actually read up on the case you would have known that Aereo restricts availability of broadcast programming to local areas. But, you didnt read, obviously havent followed the case and so now you look like an ignorant buffoon.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaec4aecad04dd5c22ef9dSAL-eWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:35:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaec4aecad04dd5c22ef9d
LOL. Good luck with your and others call for boycott. Here how it works:
1) The politicians need the TV to get elected as result TV executives get anything they want from the politicians when they are elected.
2) TV executives want cartel to extract more money, so they got legal cartel from the government.
3) Good side effect for the government, If all news sources are control by small group of people (the TV executives) it is easy to control the news.
Switching from Cable to over-the-air broadcast doesn't make a difference. You might save some money in the short term, but in the long term nothing changes.
Do you want to boycott the TV .... there is only one way.... TV OFF and do something else with your life: read books, go out, build something and etc.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaebc1eab8ea460808427dDoug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:33:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaebc1eab8ea460808427d
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
It's not personal use if you are paying someone to do it for you.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaeafd6bb3f7d06991ee36djrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:30:05 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aaeafd6bb3f7d06991ee36
The fact that it was requested by the user is highly relevant. The user is protected by "fair use". And that protection should apply when the user outsources what they could do in the home to a cloud provider.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae9f0ecad044b5322ef97HatchetwomanWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:25:36 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae9f0ecad044b5322ef97
Wow, I'm the same way! My husband and I have never hooked up cable or satellite; our TV is used to play dvd's only -- we go online for the rest. But when I'm at family's house, and we watch TV, I point out that the whole point (initially) behind cable was that by paying for a subscription, the channels would not need to run commercials. Now there's more commercials (and repetitive, too) than ever, and the subscriptions cost far too much.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae9c1ecad04385322ef98djrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:24:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae9c1ecad04385322ef98
Yes, but what if the drugs were free over-the-air and I didn't want to be bothered standing up my own paper bag? Seems there's a business niche to be filled there, no?
Especially when the bag requires non-trivial storage and streaming capacity.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae95569beddc01cc768a5queue.farmsWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:23:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae95569beddc01cc768a5
torrents all the wayhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93fecad04075122ef98Doug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:22:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93fecad04075122ef98
ESPN does.
I know they will provide their streamed programming (e.g. world cup games live) over the Internet to people who have cable subscriptions, for example.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93e69bedd4025c768a4AIriderWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:22:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93e69bedd4025c768a4
Aereo does not provide ESPN either - only over-the-air channels. Live sports seems to be the only remaining reason to have cable TV or satellite, and even for that, I suspect other subscription services might cover what people need at a lower price.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93069bedd621ec768abdjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:22:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae93069bedd621ec768ab
The phrase you're looking for is "fair use". And the Supreme Court has ruled that the consumer is protected by "fair use", which is what unleashed VCRs. See <a href="http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm</a>
The new Supreme Court is basically saying that "fair use" doesn't apply when the consumer outsources their kit to a cloud company.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae8b16bb3f7176491ee2eSecurities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:20:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae8b16bb3f7176491ee2e
I had no idea ESPN and Golf Channel streamed their live sporting events on the internet. Maybe that's because they don't.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae85269bedd5c1ec768a4Doug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:18:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae85269bedd5c1ec768a4
I wasn't commenting on Scalia's opinion, which looks wrong to me.
I was just noting that they were clearly transmitting copyrighted programming. The fact that it was upon request from the user is not relevant. Copyright prevents the making of copies, which is why libraries can loan out physical books, whereas Amazon has to pay publishers for e-books.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae83e69bedd9e1dc768a4krypticWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:18:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae83e69bedd9e1dc768a4
Sickenly, I find myself agreeing with Scalia. OMG, I need to shower.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7d6ecad04945022ef95djWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:16:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7d6ecad04945022ef95
-interweb,learn how to use it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7c86bb3f76b6391ee2dlightman441Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:16:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7c86bb3f76b6391ee2d
This is a poor decision by the court, but it is important to note that this was not an umbrella decision. This dealt specifically with Aereo. There is still hope.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7676bb3f7a75b91ee32rpWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:14:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae7676bb3f7a75b91ee32
There's no tech to be gleaned. Broadcasters can today stream live over the internet if they wanted to. Aereo's method of live streaming was convoluted and unnecessary -- it was just a workaround for the fact that broadcasters aren't doing it themselveshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae765eab8eaac70084285Securities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:14:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae765eab8eaac70084285
Actually, that thing that reinforces a virtual monopolistic lock on content is called the Copyright Act. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this decision as a legal matter. The only surprise is that it even made it to the Supreme Court.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae75b6bb3f70e5c91ee45you got his opinion worngWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:14:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae75b6bb3f70e5c91ee45
he said the people were choosing it, so the individuals were the criminals, not Aereo. It was pretty much 100% against the business model, just 3 that said the crime was not committed by Aereo.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae6fdeab8ea617208427fSecurities GuyWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:13:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae6fdeab8ea617208427f
And then how do I watch ESPN and the Golf Channel?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae6e9ecad043a4922ef9cnot quiteWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:12:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae6e9ecad043a4922ef9c
It was clearly a sham business. They simply called it an "outsourcing" to keep it nominally legal.
It's the equivalent of selling paper bags with drugs inside it and saying "I'm just selling paper bags", whatever they put inside it is not my business. The people were "renting" antennas at 10X the cost of those antennas per month? Yeah, sure.....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae687ecad04d74522ef98depressionWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:11:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae687ecad04d74522ef98
I know enough about tech to know that unless they were checking for your phones location via GPS people could be watching anything anywhere ..http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae416eab8ead763084280Doug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 11:00:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae416eab8ead763084280
They clearly were transmitting copyrighted programming.
Their argument is that the way they did it constituted fair use.
That didn't prove to be compellling.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae383eab8ea4964084281Old manWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:58:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae383eab8ea4964084281
Oh yeah, your comment makes so much sense. A lot of consumers use their DVR to watch TV and that isn't figured in to current stats about who is watching. And Aereo didn't sell an antenna for out of service areas,so the advertising was local to the subscribers. Face it, your job at CBS was a tiny bit threatened and you are singing the party line, even though you don't understand the tech involved. Nice try though.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae35eeab8eaae6708427fAlligator BreathWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:57:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae35eeab8eaae6708427f
What are you going to do about individuals buying an HD antenna? Drop back five and punt?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae347eab8ea0d6808427dDesTexWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:57:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae347eab8ea0d6808427d
Well, corporations are people too!!!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae2e8eab8ea2760084284Tchikaya BrooksWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:55:36 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae2e8eab8ea2760084284
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. isn't the obvious answer here technology. couldn't the broadcasters come up with a technology to know the end point of their transmissions and target their advertising accordingly. i would further argue that this will be more valuable to the broadcasters since they will be able to target audiences better.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae294eab8eaad6408427fDesTexWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:54:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae294eab8eaad6408427f
Anyone who doesnt have a HD antenna is just flushing money down the toilet. Please go get an antenna and cut these cable SOBs out.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae203eab8ea8c6008427fdepressionWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:51:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae203eab8ea8c6008427f
Because 99 percent of people don't REALLY care about the public domain garbage, it's just a straw man argument.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae1af6bb3f77d4791ee2ddepressionWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:50:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae1af6bb3f77d4791ee2d
I agree with the ruling. ..
Stop being ENTITLED America, you think TV doesn't have costs and that it runs on magic jelly beans ?
How are networks suppose to air programming when they not only can't figure out who's actually watching their networks but in which geographic region?
How will they figure out pricing for LOCAL ads ?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae142eab8ea035c084286Robert BobsonWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:48:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae142eab8ea035c084286
This is what happens when people who don't understand tech make rulings.
As a result, what would have helped an embattled industry grow is now criminalized.
Sheesh. Never thought I'd agree with Scalia on anything.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0e76bb3f74a4191ee33F3-0aWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:47:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0e76bb3f74a4191ee33
Gotta agree with Scalia on this one, Aereo wasn't transmitting copyrighted programming.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0c869beddb879c768aaBill KratzerWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:46:32 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0c869beddb879c768aa
Since when did the supreme court side on commercial interests , instead of the letter and intent of the law. I am very disappointed about this ruling.
Seems another step toward the In-Corporation of our country, instead of the ability to bring innovative ideas to the people to choose and pick their product choices from, mega interests are controlling our choices instead.
And saddly the Supreme Court is acting as their Lackie . Shame on you.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0a469bedd627ec768adjesus2020Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:45:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae0a469bedd627ec768ad
What about public domain and works that are intended to be free to the consumer? The phrase "copyrighted content" keeps jumping out at me.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae08269bedd627ec768a6Dean WormerWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:45:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aae08269bedd627ec768a6
Im still pissed about Napster. I want to be able to steal whatever copyrighted stuff I want. Copyright sucks. Having to pay for stuff sucks. I'm going back to my parents basement with my SNAP card and bowl of Cheerios and World of Warcraft.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadf43eab8ea705608427dAngusWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:40:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadf43eab8ea705608427d
This is bullshit.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadeac6bb3f7303c91ee2edjrichardWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:37:32 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadeac6bb3f7303c91ee2e
Kind of shocked at this outcome. To me it seemed a clear outsourcing arrangement - rather than me standing up my own antenna and DVR, I've outsourced that to Aereo. I guess outsourcing to the cloud is OK as long as it's not TV content. Hmmm.
Well no bother, just get simple.tv or tablotv and push the cloud server (with TV content) back into the home.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aade6869bedd7774c768aathebigciceroWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:36:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aade6869bedd7774c768aa
No kidding. I can't imagine an industry that is more despised by its customers than the cable industry. Here's a major legal decision that just reinforces a virtual monopolistic lock on content by the cable companies. Yuck. They can take their bundles and "triple-plays" and stick it...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadddaecad04752322ef9fTTXNETWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:34:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadddaecad04752322ef9f
With this ruling the broadcaster can take 2 routes 10 kill Aereo or 2 be willing to milk it with some type of licensing fees. Number 2 means Aereo stays afloat but of course its a business right?!? So you will take a bit of that hit if you want the services.
My would think the broadcasters want to bake this turkey and glean whatever tech and know-how for themselves as an alternative with only them making the beans.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadcf3ecad04be1f22ef9cArmstrong HendersonWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:30:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadcf3ecad04be1f22ef9c
Anyone know what the implication to Aereo prices would be should they pass retransmission fees to subscribers in order to stay in business?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadcbeeab8eaca46084280Doug in VirginiaWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:29:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadcbeeab8eaca46084280
While I hate the cable companies and have my own antenna, Aereo was always a sham and a crock. They were trying to be a video distribution (i.e. cable) company that didn't pay any rights fees.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadc61ecad04fa2222ef99Lucius ModernusWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:27:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadc61ecad04fa2222ef99
time for the real boycott of telecom to begin...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadc1d6bb3f7df3191ee34ybfmiamiWed, 25 Jun 2014 10:26:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53aadc1d6bb3f7df3191ee34
This will encourage me to buy an HD Antenna. I refuse to pay for broadcast TV via Cable when we are forced to watch endless commercials at the same time.